The Danger of Magical Thinking In The Hands Of Would-Be Mentors Cannot Be Overemphasized If Your Serious About Your Success!
Every couple of days I drop my my Facebook page to see who’s posted what – and today what came up for me is the foolishness of magical thinking, especially when it’s presented by someone who’s out there mentoring people.
Today I began writing a long response to someone on Facebook who is a well known trainer running mentoring programs and offering mentoring to individuals about magical thinking based on a post he put up. I decided after about three minutes of writing to delete it not to embarrass a colleague in a public forum, however the bitter taste of his folly still lingers and I need to spit it out.
While I don’t spend hours a day doing “social media” there are a couple of groups there I participate in on occasion. Most of these are about NLP, hypnosis, changework, performance or transformation … and posting in the last category often get my goat, because they so often wander into the land of magical thinking.
However, before you think this is going to be a posting about Facebook, LinkedIn or any other social networking site in the interest of full disclosure you need to know I’m far from being the “social networking maven.” Despite my familiarity and knowledge of the medium, it’s just too time consuming to be everywhere all the time – and make no mistake about it that’s what it takes to be a social networking maven … huge commitments of time, energy and effort.
I’m reminded of my own rejoinder to folks about how to create outstanding results where you want them …
“Where you put your attention, is where you’ll get your results.”
This in turn reminds me of another idea a colleague and friend of mine, Matt Furey, first introducted me to:
The Law of Practice
“The Law of Practice” is Matt’s companion to the “Law of Attraction” that makes a magical idea practical IMO.If you want to get more of how Matt thinks about this I recommend his book, “Expect to Win, Hate to Lose” it’s incredibly inspiring, informational and entertaining as hell too, if you haven’t read it yet, go and buy it now.
I’ve been on about the idea of putting your attention where you want your results for over ten years now. To me this is akin to the law of practice at an attentional level, i.e.: keeping your focus where you want to see the results and outcomes of your life happening. Matt’s idea of The Law of Practice takes this another step forward IMO.
To sum up Matt’s idea briefly it’s that while there are a ton of people who are talking about The Law of Attraction, and the The Secret that it supposedly holds, almost no one is revealing that you only get your results when you add in The Law of Practice, i.e.: you have to take action. The practice Matt refers to is two-fold, practice as in the continual refinement and honing of your knowledge and skills, and practice as in taking continual action as in a disciplined way of acting in the world. I couldn’t agree with Matt more on this one … I think he’s not only right on, but without The Law of Practice, The Law of Attraction isn’t only ineffective, it’s downright dangerous!
But I’m probably a bit ahead of myself here … so I’ll slow down a bit and take it step-by-step with you.
Magical Thinking:
Magical thinking often goes something like this …
“In the beginning there was a unified singularity smaller than a grape. Then something shifted in that singularity – badda bing, badda boom – and the Universe as we know it began at what is now known as the Big Bang!
From that single event and that grape sized mass all of the known Universe emerged, speeding away from the place where it all began at incredible speeds. First the debris from the Big Bang began to collect in clouds, and under the force of gravity those clouds began to collect and become stars. Because those stars where packed in a space much smaller than the Universe occupies today they collided and from those collisions new stars were born, some smaller and some larger … and those stars spawned other forms of matter … denser than the matter of stars. From this more dense matter planets, moons, asteroids, comets … were formed as well.
Over billions of years as the Universe expanded it cooled. Some of the stars collected systems of denser matter around them by the force of their enormous gravitational field. These became solar systems, and in even larger collections of stars and solar systems loosely knitted together by forces both known and unknown, galaxies formed as well. Yet everything there ever was and ever will be was contained in that single grape-sized mass at the beginning. Here on Earth some of that matter spawned life, and again over more billions of years life evolved to become humankind, made of the same stuff as the stars. So you can say you are made of stardust … and that would be accurate.
Well we also know that at the quantum level all matter is connected. When you split an atom and observe the separate particles racing away from one another you can measure their spin as positive or negative, a clockwise or counter-clockwise spin. However, what’s amazing is that when you act on one particle and change it’s spin by forcing it to pass through a strong magnetic field the other particle that was paired with it instantly changes its spin as well. Despite begin separated by vast distances, the two particles remain entangled with one another energetically.
Since we are made of the same stuff that the particles are made of then it is reasonable to acknowledge that once we’ve connected with someone we remain energetically entangled with them as well. This is the miracle of quantum entanglement and energy. It’s what the mystics have said throughout the ages and now science is giving us proof that they were right all along. In fact when we look at the world at a quantum level we realize there’s nothing there, literally … there’s just potentiality until we observe it, at which point the potential becomes manifest depending on what we’re looking for in it.
The mystics and sages have been telling us this as well, that the entire Universe is a projection of our consciousness … that we create reality with our minds. Before we project our consciousness into the Universe it’s just random potentially, and only when we do does it become manifest and real. We have the potential to create our realities at the quantum level by learning to project our consciousness in specific and concentrated ways to manifest anything we desire. This is the essence of The Law of Attraction that the mystics and the sages have known all along …”
Of course I could make the story longer and more complex, but that covers at least the basics … and a good hypnotic tale it is too! It presumes a hermetic, tautological reality. It uses logical chaining and cognitive inertia to pull the reader/listener along. It presents seemingly convincing science to support the argument being made. It’s emotionally compelling, i.e.: most people want to believe it. These are all sound hypnotic storytelling techniques, and there are more, but that’s not what the point of this post is about today – let’s leave it at saying that to/for an untrained, non-critical reader this is very believable story on the surface.
The problem with this story and all others like it is that it’s pure bunk wrapped up in pseudo-scientific speak. Sure some of the facts are true enough based on our current state of cosmological understanding, e.g. the Big Bang theory, basic quantum physics ideas like entanglement … but they are presented out of context and used to support a spurious argument at best.
The most significant aspect of this kind of telling is that it satisfies our G-d quest, i.e.: the desire to have the mysteries of the Universe explained. This may or may not be a result of a G-d gene that programs us to seek a metaphysical answer to the realities of the Universe that we confront as humans, but regardless of the cause the quest persistently remains a part of our longing. I refer to this as an ontological longing, a desire to know what and who we are … and to fit that into an understanding of our place in the Cosmos.
However as soon as we begin to apply even the most basic scientific analysis to the “science” used in magical thinking it begins to fall apart rapidly. Here are two simple examples …
Claim: “We are made of stardust.”
Analysis: Yes, we are formed of the same atomic and sub-atomic particles at the physical level as stars. However stars are made up of elements all much lighter than iron when they are living and active. As soon as iron begins to form in stars as a result of the process of nuclear fission occurring within them, they begin to rapidly collapse, die off and go nova. The physical world we live in, are constructed from and contain within us, is comprised of elements much denser than iron that are stable and required for life as we know it in human terms. No star could survive in a “human condition.”
Claim: “We are energetically entangled.”
Analysis: Even particles that display quantum entanglement show no evidence of being entangled energetically. There is no transfer of energy that is discernible, nor is there any time that can be discerned for this transfer of energy to occur in the instantaneous response of the entangled particles to the state change in the other. This can only be accounted for as informational, not energetic. The brilliant quantum physicist, David Bohm, makes this clear in his seminal work, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” about the role of information at the quantum level and the hidden variables required to create a satisfactory explanation of quantum behavior at a macroscopic level. David Bohm uses the representation of a holographic universe to make sense of the role of information as enfolded or unfolded in physical reality, a much better way to explain entanglement than energetically.
Now here’s the major problem with all of this … people are pre-disposed to believing magical thinking, they want to believe it and they will believe it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – in matters where the evidence matters. For instance there is no escaping that we are a superstitious species, most likely the only superstitious species that ever evolved on the planet. Yet most people can discern the difference from superstition and what’s real, e.g.: breaking a mirror is not really going to create a seven-year bad luck streak. But when presented with magical thinking, the same impulse that gives rise to superstition, i.e.: spurious cause-and-effect linkages, rushes up and takes over … because, unlike with much superstition, the suggested result is so desirable in so many instances of magical thinking.
When someone who is a trusted source, e.g.: a mentor, is added into the mix, the potential for being misled by magical thinking mantras becomes wildly exaggerated. There are thousands of people who have been under the sway of husksters selling false belief to the tune of millions or maybe even billions of dollars fueling this fire of misinformation.
Magical thinking satisfies the ontological longing in the same way meth-amphetamine releases the rush of dopamine that produces extraordinary sensations of satisfaction and pleasure in the brains of addicts.
In the world of modernity or post-modernity, where as Nietzsche put it “G-d is dead.” (German: “Gott isht tot.”), there is a innate compulsion to experience the satisfaction of having the answers to unanswerable mysteries of the Cosmos, the understanding that comes with having those answers and the sense of profound relief and pleasure at having something to look to for the explanation that satisfies our ontological longings and desire … and magical thinking fulfills that desire brilliantly.
Myth, Mythos and the Mythosphere
In the work I do mythological form plays an extremely important role, allowing me perceive, access and modify the narratives that my clients are operating from, both individual and organizational clients. I normally refer to this as the semantic structure, meaning the entire representational form of the gestalt worldview of the client. This is how the client perceives, represents and relates to what they think of as “real” or “reality” in a conscious, i.e.: representational, way.
The reason I refer to it as mythological has to do with the structure of conscious, representational awareness. The renowned comparative mythological scholar, Joseph Campbell, gave a form to the structure of mythology when he published his seminal work, “The Hero With A Thousand Faces.” Rather than present myths as stories that were told, he used those stories to unveil the structure beneath them. This structure is form of what he referred to as “becoming human” … the journey from birth and immaturity to adulthood and maturity. Within that journey he speaks of the phases of human experience moving from dependence, to independence, to interdependence – thus becoming fully human. What’s interesting of course is that not everyone becomes fully human according to this model, with some people never moving beyond dependence to independence, and many people finding themselves stuck at independence, and others stuck in the transitions between phases, e.g.: dependence-independence or independence-interdependence.
The relative position – from dependence, to independence, to interdependence – that someone occupies within the structure of the “Hero’s Journey” is revealed in the Life Story they hold and operate from in their life.
The autobiographical narrative is held and told with very unique and specific characteristics, depending on where a person resides in their journey to becoming fully human. The story someone is living is their gestalt worldview, and one way it can be interpreted is using the filter of Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey” model leading from dependence to interdependence. Along the trajectory of this journey the desire to satisfy the ontological yearning to know who we are is encapsulated in the narrative that is a person’s Life Story in any given moment. To what extent the ontological yearning is satisfied will be revealed by the structure of the story someone holds, i.e.: their gestalt worldview in terms of their autobiographical narrative.
The advantage of using mythological structure to analyze the autobiographical narrative someone reveals in the way they express their Life Story is that it offers clues about what to be doing to help them move along the trajectory to becoming fully human as Campbell put it, and also to relieve the pressure of the ontological longing. Unlike magical thinking, mythological form is fully vetted over many millennia of human history. Rather than working with magical thoughts that are perceived to be representative of extant reality, mythology treats the stories we hold as metaphorical. The distinction that myths suggest possibilities and pathways versus absolute truths or cosmic laws of some kind is overwhelmingly significant from the point of view of the mentoring process. Mythology, again according to Joseph Campbell, should be treated as connotative rather than denotative.
In the mentor’s role using mythological form creates access to the autobiographical narrative … the gestalt worldview … and an elegant means of shifting it to a more mature and useful position. This is the entry point to creating transformational change at the conscious level of what I’ve referred to as representational reality … the way we perceive the world to be, and the way we represent it to ourselves and others. This is the structure we use to make sense of the world. Changing the structure of the autobiographical narrative changes what things mean to us, and how we experience the events of our lives. However the most powerful aspect of working mythologically is that it takes the control out of the hands of the mentor and gives back the control to the client. This distinguishes working mythologically from magical thinking in a radical way … rather than being subject to the whims and winds of the Universe, the individual who possess mythological knowledge takes control of their life.
Maybe this is most clearly presented in Joseph Campbell’s stated four functions of mythology:
1) To explain the mystery and awe of the Cosmos
2) To present the cosmology of the times according to the latest scientific and technological understanding of the times
3) To inculcate and teach the social mores and rules of the culture and society
4) To reveal the path of self-knowledge to uncover one’s essential identity, relieving the ontological yearning to know oneself
The wonder is that when working mythologically a mentor can walk with a client sharing all four of these steps on their journey to becoming fully human.
While not every mentor is mythologically trained or capable, those that are stand apart in their ability to expose the magnificence often lying dormant in their clients waiting only for the fresh breath of inspiration to awaken and be realized. Owning and applying this knowledge, skill and ability as a mentor could be called applied wisdom … because after all the first Mentor was Athena in disguise … another role familiar to the best mentors, the trickster provocateur.
P.S. – Check out my newest workshops: Experiencing Transformational Performance, 2 Extraordinary Days with Dr. Joseph Riggio: Experiencing Transformational Performance (http://tiny.cc/hs5rbw)
Thomas says
You know Joseph I’m going to reread this again. Right now I’m taking a coffee break because I’m in between cleaning out appliances to sell, left overs from mom’s house.
I’ll admit I fell for it hook line and sinker. Not to get into my story but at one point I honestly thought god hated me. My mother was anything but loving. Her life’s frustrations were aimed at me and that’s the best way I can figure why a mother would scream at and use a belt on her son. Dad left at an early age and I didn’t meet him till much later in life. In the meantime I searched for an example of what a real man is supposed to be like, and I gotta tell you, I gave up the search long ago.
I think after I reached a point where I was fed up and I turned to that self proclaimed spiritual community for answers. The only thing I discovered there was more bullshit. Seems like that’s what’s in demand these days, and yet I could never do that to someone who needed help, and possibly a bit of encouragement along the way.
I feel like I’m starting over with life. Many things just don’t seem to matter much to me since my sister died some months ago. I knew she also struggled, being that she was deaf, I know she looked at herself as being flawed. I never once looked at her that way. Maybe I shouldn’t even talk about this shit.
Joseph says
Thomas – it’s an easy story to fall for, it’s attractive as hell because it’s so closely tied into our neurological bias regarding how we are organized to perceive and believe. Our sense-making system more naturally organizes around “magic” than “hard cold facts” – in part because we are story-tellers and story-listeners.
The other aspect of it is that we always want to explain things and to have explanations for things, e.g.: thunder is the g-ds at war amongst themselves.
We are programmed to make sense of things, and if a logical, factual explanation isn’t available or intuitive a magical one will do.
Gary says
The power of wishful thinking is a truly impressive thing. I also have little patience for the whole “law of attraction” theory. It really is a nasty little double whammy. By focusing so entirely on an idealized future, that is divorced from reality, folks end up missing out on what is actually going on here and now and never get around to actually doing much. Of course if it doesn’t work there is always something else to buy.
Joseph says
Gary – We agree. I have the “double whammy” you describe too.
The challenge is that this kind of thinking is so pervasive, even in folks who don’t want to believe it. I find myself as attracted to it as anyone else. When I’m in the presence of a good storyteller using “magical thinking” metaphors or the structure of magical thinking like I’ve laid it out above in my example of hypnotically organizing the presentation I’m mesmerized. BUT – there’s a catch here, I take it as entertainment, not a life philosophy.
Then there’s a secondary challenge as well … in addition to the natural inclination of being pulled toward magical explanations that are part and parcel of millennia of enculturation as storytellers and story-listeners magical thinking tales make you feel good.
First you’ve got the issue of our inclination culturally towards being responsive to mythological form, and I’d argue neurologically as well. If you read the work by some of the latest cognitive scientists there are more and more indications that we are neurologically responsive to metaphor, beyond any mere cultural preference for it. Then you have the physical response we manifest in the presence of story … literature, film … but most especially live performance, e.g.: theater. In category of live performance you also have oratory, speaking and storytelling. The mere act of being in the presence of another human physically who is speaking is profound. We begin to entrain with the speaker in a way that isn’t possible when this physical engagement isn’t present. We are definitively neurologically biased to resonate with others in their physical presence.
We now know about “mirror neurons” which transfer somatically induced states from one person to another. We also are beginning to recognize the impact of the sub-cortical processes on creating resonance and entrainment between individuals, one-to-one and in groups. We know that it is possible for a great speaker to create and manipulate a “group effect” with crowds that is significantly more impactful in a live setting than remotely, e.g.: via a television presentation. Any teenager or young adult knows this effect personally if they’ve ever attended a concert with friends.
At some level what we’re talking about is brain chemistry, and magical thinking stories are uniquely suited for stimulating the release of the neurochemistry of pleasure. This makes them compelling and addictive. Once someone has gotten a ‘fix’ of the pleasure ride of magical thinking it’s difficult to get off … think cult.
Here are two books magical thinkers will hate, and mentors who use magical thinking will hate more:
The Neuroscience of Religious Experience
Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
Here’s one more that bridges the other two:
Principles of Neurotheology (Ashgate Science and Religion Series)
Gary says
I can imagine that at one time it made a lot of sense to completely believe the elders. Now it seems like a good idea to be a little choosy about which elders to listen to.
Anyway thanks for the book recommendations they look really interesting.
Tom says
Very interestng posting Joe.
If you’re willing, since we are talking about things that lean on the side of “religiousness,” would you put this all into a better context by sharing your own religious position.
What is your faith?
Are you a Christian?
Are you an atheist?
What exactly are your religious beliefs?
When it comes to religion, how do you define your position in this way?
I’d like to know more about the beliefs of the person writing a post such as this.
Thanks
Tom
Joseph says
Tom,
I consider myself a “man of faith” without a specific or particular religious orientation. I believe primarily in the absolute sentience of the Universe, that manifests as what many from various faiths refer to as G-d by many and varied names. I also believe that while none of these names represents G-d, all of these names point to the sentient source I refer to as G-d myself.
I also hold that the sentient source that is the Universe as I understand it cannot be limited to one form or even a singular form, while this source itself remains singular in that it represents all that is … i.e.: G-d is the ontological singularity that is the Universe.
I also believe all the sages, saints and prophets point to this sentient source, that all of them come from this sentient source and ultimately must be this sentient source if in fact this singular sentient source is all that is, i.e.: the Universe in its totality, because they are essential to the Universe as are the stars, planets and all that is known.
Finally, I’ll add that what I am referring to here as G-d cannot be contained, or even fully grasped in ordinary human terms, because while G-d contains us we cannot and do not contain G-d, despite that fact that we are G-d. G-d manifests in everything and can be found everywhere, as well as in every act – including those we falsely believe to be what we refer to as evil. If G-d is all, we cannot limit the experience of how this manifests, nor seek to understand or explain it within a human experience or from a human perspective. Yet, I also hold that G-d can be experienced directly in what can be, and has been, called mystical revelation. To experience mystical revelation requires us to transcend the ordinary limits and boundaries of human perception. Within mystical revelation the experience of the singularity becomes present, and we are able to experience G-d personally, so I hold what I’ve been calling the singular sentient source that is the Universe in its totality to be a personal G-d.
While little of this can be adequately explained given the limits of language, within the experience of standing in the presence of G-d, in everything that is manifest, including all acts and events, what I have called faith emerges and becomes my perpetual perceptual position, i.e.: I experience myself as a man of faith.
PS – Tom, I wrote about this less technically and more personally in my Subjective I statement for my Ph.D. Dissertation, and you can download a PDF of that portion of the Subjective I statement here: Partial Subjective I Statement from “Towards a Theory of Transpersonal Decision-Making in Human Systems
t says
Hi,
Great posting and set of postings around myth and our lived story. More and more I’m drawn to be, become and learn from the master storytellers that live from their story and inspire tranformation from their art. Who have been the master story tellers that have influenced and shaped your craft. What are some of the best resources on this that you have experience yourself.
What would you say are the determinants/markers and pointers to the craft of good storytelling and embodying your story?
What are some of the neuroscience refrences that may augment what you said here or integrate well? Specifically the pointing to the neurology and the soma being organized evolutionarily to be reponsive to, to generate and to be designed for personal mythology or our deep story?
Keep it coming there’s lots of mytho rushing forward from you and it’s simply awesome and inspirational.
Many thanks and into the beyond,
T
Tom says
Joe,
thanks you for so kindly sharing that PDF download with me/us, and your reply to my message.
There are so many things I’d like to ask you, based on your reply, I don’t know where to begin 🙂
But I’ll begin here:
What I’m hearing or ‘getting’ from your reply is that you don’t follow any particular organized religion, YET you have faith in the sentient Universe that contains you, and sustains you. (correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s essentially what I’m hearing inside of what you have said)
So if this is true, you relate to the Universe (all that “IS”) not as a “being” (like most religions refer to G-D as) but as an experience of the totality that you are a part of.
My questions then are:
1) In what way(s) do you belive that this “sustains” you?
2) Since you’ve said that your belief is an “unreasonable” one, why do you belive it’s unreasonable?
I’m very much enjoying this exchange.
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – happy to oblige … BUT first a quid pro quo …
What’s your religious/theological/spiritual orientation if I may?
Joseph
Joseph says
Tom – Thanks for your reply to my question below.
Now fairplay here are your answers …
1) In what way(s) do you belive that this “sustains” you?
I actually just finished writing a long post for Blognostra again today, Your Life Story – Coming Full Circle and without meaning to I think I answered this there.
Essentially what I got on to was that there are two fundamental positions we can choose to hold, A) an open frame of mind, or B) a closed frame of mind. I believe that my belief sustains me in holding an open state of mind. Akin to Albert Einstein’s question regarding as whether to choose to perceive the Universe as friendly or hostile, I choose to see it as friendly.
Here’s one version of that quote:
“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.“ – Albert Einstein
Once you decide that the Universe is friendly it becomes easy to seek the benevolent nature behind the events you experience in moving through it. The idea that there is a sentience … intelligence, intention and even wisdom … in the way the Universe unfolds sustains me as I consider myself part and parcel of this magnificent system that simply is without limitation as we understand it.
2) Since you’ve said that your belief is an “unreasonable” one, why do you belive it’s unreasonable?
Because it transcends reason. It needs no reason to stand “as is” … it just is …
Tom says
Thanks Joe,
My orientation is this: I do not “buy” the idea of “organized relgion” – I never will.
Much of what goes on in Islam makes me angry. For example, the penalty for surrendering your faith – in Islam – is Death!! They kill you because you don’t belive what they tell you to belive.
And don’t even get me started on Catholisism, where hundreds of children are raped every year by priests – “supposed men of G-d”!
So I think you see my standpoint on this idea of religion!
HOWEVER, I do belive, like you, that we are part of something (GTS) Greater Than We Are. Something, largely, beyond our own conception. I belive that this Greatness is all powerful, and that we are part of it all.
So many would call my position a “spiritual” position, and I do not disagree.
I’d much rather agree that we don’t know so much about the world, and just be comfortable with this sense of mystery, than belive some “prophet in the desert” who claimed to have “all the knowledge”, or “worship” some being in the sky “looking down on us all.”
So this is my position.
I hope this answers your question, and I look forward to your reply.
By the way, I’m finding this series of messages really really interesting.
Tom
Tom says
Thanks for your reply Joe.
Since you agree you are making a “leap of faith” in regard to your decision to see the Universe as a “friendly” universe (instead of an hostile one) then how is this any different to making a leap of faith in beliveing that, for example, there is a G-d who listens to your prayers and punishes you, or rewards you, according to your behavours? … and then finally decides whether you go to heaven … or hell?
Since there’s no evidence either way that the universe is friendly (or not) you would have to agree that the “leap of faith” needed is the SAME a someone who belives in a Christian G-d, or an Islamic G-d.
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – now we’re entering deep water. What I find is that if you’re going into deep water there are a couple of essentials to keep in mind …
First, it’s best if you do it in a boat, even the best of the best can only take so much time in deep water before it gets them.
Second, if you have to go into deep water you better be able to swim, swim well … and swim for a long time. To some extent surviving deep water is a matter of skills and persistence in combination. Even if you have a boat to begin with you better be able to swim if need be.
Third, there’s some dangerous stuff out there … sharks, Man O’War jelly fish … stuff that can and possibly will hurt you or kill you. So be prepared to fight for your life.
Fourth, this is the most important one … if you’re going into deep water prepare to die ’cause you might not make it back, then once that thought has properly sobered you prepare to live and do what it takes to make it back.
Now that we’ve cleared that up …
Here’s my answer to your first question, you just choose.
What makes you think for instance from my reply above that I don’t pray? Heck man any sane person knows the praying is for you not for G-d! The pray-ee gets all the benefits.
But I also hold the idea that it’s wise to pray as if there’s a G-d and work as if there isn’t. (You did read all my stuff about not getting lost in magical thinking, eh? Same thing …)
Regarding the heaven and hell thing … there’s no where to go to, this is it … BOTH. Once again it’s a choice …
I shared that I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith in the PDF you downloaded. In that religion as well as every Christian religion I know of there is only one prayer that is said to have been passed on by Jesus, the Lord’s Prayer.
The Lord’s Prayer starts out, “Our Father, Who art in heaven …” and quickly moves to “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”
As a little boy I understood this to mean, if I live in the will of G-d (the Father), and allow G-d to direct me to do His will, then I would be living in Heaven on earth. That’s always worked for me, regardless of how my conception of G-d has evolved throughout my life. E.g.: If I am in sync with the undulations of the Universe I am in Heaven.
FWIW I experience my life exactly in this way.
It’s a very early spring here in New Jersey. I live in a very beautiful part of the world. As a friend who visited us from California said, “it’s absolutely lush.” This time of year the world renews itself here. All the trees that were dormant over the winter come back to life, flowering from the buds that have formed as the weather was warming and the sap began to flow again.
This year the temperatures have been unseasonably warm, reaching into the 70s, which is unusual for New Jersey in March by my recollection as a lifelong resident. Just down the road from where I live is a an old nursery, part of which has been turned into a county park, parts were sold off and small homes were built on the property and some of the original nursery remains intact. Along the road on either side is the evidence of the long standing history of the nursery, dozens of fruit trees lining the street … all of which are in bloom. It’s a spectacular display of small white and pink blooms, like driving into and through an impressionist painting … miraculous!
What I suspect though is that a great number of people who use this street every day … driving back and forth to work, back and forth taking their children to and from school, back and forth on their errands … have never noticed the blooms … misery.
Heaven and hell … CHOOSE!
Finally, to your last question … I guess, but in the words of Joseph Campbell, “I don’t have belief, I have experience.”
Tom says
Hello Joseph,
{Why am I in deep water??? Not quite sure what you mean by this??}
Yes – exactly, you “just choose”.
So are you willing to agree that you “just choose” without reasonable evidence?
And if you do, then it brings us back to the original idea, becuase you seem to be contradicting yourself.
If you proclaim (which you have) that the Law of Attraction is basically BULLSHIT, why are you making what are basically religious claims?
I’m not sure I still fully understand your position on all of this.
One moment you say LOA is “BS”, then you’re saying that you have proof in the universe being “kind” without evidence.
It’s the same thing Joseph, i.e., beliving in something (G-d, Law of Atraction … whatever) WITHOUT PROOF, OR EVIDENCE!
So where are you making the distinction?
Where are you drawing the line?
Forgive me if I seem stupid, but you still haven’t made your position clear.
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – I’ll indulge you one more time.
The way I’m beginning to read this you’re making a spurious, “appled and oranges” argument. You take one thing and make it all things, i.e.: the Law of Attraction is the same as a belief in G-d. I refer to the kind of thinking your applying as “This is like That” – FWIW I hate this form of thinking, it’s the laziest and shoddiest kind of thinking to explain a complex world in trivial terms. I know it’s popular today, e.g.: all the “Blah, Blah, Blah for Dummies books, and simplistic formulaic communication in the media, e.g.: most political debate. Ultimately, this is solipsism, like some of the folks who extend the Law of Attraction theory to be “I Am G-d” thinking.
To begin, there is a distinction between, “… you still haven’t made your position clear.” and you (Tom) don’t understand clarity of the position in the way I’ve presented it. But let’s leave that behind us for now …
I’ll quote myself …
But I also hold the idea that it’s wise to pray as if there’s a G-d and work as if there isn’t. (You did read all my stuff about not getting lost in magical thinking, eh? Same thing …)
The Law of Attraction states that you can and will attract things to you by thought. I’m saying you must take action.
How much clearer can that be???
Also, I don’t associate the belief in G-d with the Law of Attraction. I don’t believe for instance that G-d delivers on prayers if they are made with good intention and sincerity. I believe that the Universe acts in spite of our desires and aspirations.
I never claimed “proof” for anything. I claimed I have experience of perceiving the world in a particular way based on my choice to perceive it that way. I never claimed to manifest pineapples …
Okay now I’ve indulged you again. If you’re looking to fight I don’t want to play. If you still don’t understand than read the whole thing again. If you still don’t understand after that, then accept I’m confused and move on from this posting, it’s just a small amount of what I’ve put out there stating my position.
If you have a different question I’ll be happy to engage.
Tom says
Joeseph,
No, I’m not looking for a fight. There are no “hard feelings” from my side. Thing is, this type of conversation is about people’s deep bleiefs, so can have an edge to it!
If in fact you believe that the Universe acts in spite of our desires and aspirations, then why would you pray?
What do you hope the praying will “do” or “cause”?
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – what is it that you’re hoping I’ll say?
FWIW it’s not about hard feelings, I didn’t suggest any from either side. It’s about a contentious approach to engaging. I don’t mind argument that has an intention and leads somewhere, in fact I like it. But it’s foolish to argue about beliefs, the only way that this can lead somewhere is if one party has the intention of changing the beliefs of another. That’s the game I don’t want to play.
I’m at ease with my beliefs in this regard. I’m open to alternative approaches and information, but I don’t want to debate them … nor do I want to be challenged in this forum about them, and I don’t have any need to defend them. They are just my beliefs – part of my story, which I recognize as such … i.e.: a story, not fact, not empirical evidence to anyone else, just the story I’ve constructed from my own personal life experience.
Tom, what do you hope to gain by this discussion? A justification of your own beliefs, story, experience? Hope that there is something else to believe in, e.g.: a better story than the one you have? A path to salvation? What?
Knowing my beliefs to make sense of what I post makes sense to an extent. Debating my beliefs takes it all in another direction. I’m no theological authority, nor do I claim to be one. I’m at best an avocational philosopher. I don’t hold any desire to change anyone’s religious, theological or spiritual beliefs if they are content with the ones they currently have. I’m open to intelligent discussion about beliefs, and that’s about as far as I go with it. Since I BELIEVE I don’t have the corner of belief I’m perfectly okay with you (or anyone else) believing whatever you want.
I don’t hold any animosity towards Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Zoroastianism … frankly I don’t care what you believe, but I do care who you are … and the only evidence I have of that is not what you believe, but how you act … your behaviors.
Now I’ll answer your question. I pray for myself.
What makes you think for instance from my reply above that I don’t pray? Heck man any sane person knows the praying is for you, not for G-d! The pray-ee gets all the benefits.
[The only exception I can think of to this would be when someone else knows you’re praying for them and they receive the beneficence of your prayers.]
Tom, one more thing the closest I’ve come to a religion I can abide by is Dudeism. In fact I’ve decided to practice this particular religion publicly alongside all my other more personal beliefs by becoming an ordained Dudeist priest. You can read a bit more about that here: Joseph Riggio Short Bio
Teresa says
“Joseph Campbell, gave a form to the structure of mythology when he published his seminal work, “The Hero With A Thousand Faces.” Nobody understands this as well as Kal Bashir at http://www.youtube.com/user/clickokDOTcoDOTuk
Joseph says
Teresa – normally I filter ‘advertising’ (intentional or not), but in this case I totally agree that Kal has some great stuff on his YouTube channel.
For those of you who don’t know about Kal’s work he has developed material to help writers, playwrights and screen writers to use Joseph Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey” model. If you’re interested in how the “Hero’s Journey” model works in regard to story his material is a fantastic resource.
While I wouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that nobody understands Joseph Campbell’s structure of mythology as well as Kal, in terms of applying it to the construction of story who knows, it might just be a spot on comment.
If you’re interested in the application of the “Hero’s Journey” to story, and you haven’t yet seen any of Kal’s videos where he breaks down stories from film using the “Hero’s Journey” model as a template you’ll find it a treat.
NOTE: One caveat … using the “Hero’s Journey” as a template for understanding, interpreting and constructing stories is one thing … getting the application of the model as a transformation technology is another thing entirely.
Tom says
Hi Joseph,
I agree that tghis is basically a discussion about beliefs.
What do I hope to gain by this discussion?:
Well NLP is the study of the structure of beliefs, so I do think it’s unseful to discuss beliefs, because it allows both parties a wider view of things. For me, it’s always a learning expereince to learn about how someone else constructs their own reality.
So, are you suggesting that what’s most important is not living according to some “truth” ….out there…, but instread to live within the construction of our own “stories” that have meaning for us?
(which many or may not be empirically true)
Would you agree with that Joseph?
And if so, you’d have to agree that we’re just maing it all up anyway …
And if you agree with that, you’ll agree with the idea that if it’s all made up anyway then why not just make up what works the best (for you and for me) and live that way, WITHOUT REGARD FOR WHETHER IT’S ACTUALLY “TRUE” OR NOT.
Are we on the same wavelength now?
Tom
Joseph says
Hey Tom – You’ve been reading my work, eh?
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for about two decades, “It’s all made up!”
So as I’ve said that you’ve now said … if you’re going to make it up, then make up “what works” … in other words, choose a good story.
Tom says
I agree with you Joseph. I definately agree. It’s all made up.
So since we agree, this brings us back to the Law of Attaction.
Even if the LOA is not “true” and cannot be “varified”, and is all made up, you will have to agree that if a person chooses to belive that it is TRUE, and constructs a personal story for themselves that includes the LOA being true and working for them in their lives, that it will therefore work for them!
Do you see what I’m getting at here??
It takes us back to the same idea, does it not?????
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – we’ve covered this ground already (more than once now …).
If you want to believe in the LOA go right ahead, you have my full permission and sanction.
If you want to be right then I’m okay with that too … “I concede you’re right.” … now you can feel better about having made your point too.
However, if you want to be in the same discussion I’m having then you are again in a solipsistic fallacy. Just because you make something up, and you believe it that doesn’t mean it does or will work. I never said or suggested that … EVER!
The story I am suggesting that you made up are the memories you have of events you’ve experienced. You get to choose what those memories are every time you recall them … and then they become what the memory is for you.
I also suggested that our experience of reality is based on the story of what is real that we hold … this is NOT the same as our experience being reality, i.e.: making things up makes things work. In fact what I’ve suggested repeatedly is that if you find that the story you’re living from doesn’t support you in getting your outcomes then change the story since you’re making it up anyway.
If somehow you can make up a LOA story that can create your outcomes by you “attracting” them to you without a parallel story about what you have to be doing while your “attracting” things to you then by all means have at it!
But please in any future story you hold in regard to me, please include at least some of what I actually say and write about within it.
Joseph
Tom says
P.S. – if your focus Joseph is on “what works” (and not on “whats true”), then the LOA works for a lot of people.
And so if it “works” for them, then how can it be bullshit????
Tom
Joseph says
Tom – see my comments above.
(FWIW some people need to have their innate bullshit meters seriously re-tuned.)
Tom says
Joseph, where does “objective truth” fit into your understanding of all of this?
What I can gather from you, you seem to be more interested the “story,”
but not truth itself.
From what I can gather, you deem it more important to “act as though it’s true,” as opposed to the truth itself.
Are you saying that it doesn’t matter what true, and that what’s better is to act in line with the “story” of your life?
Tom
Tom says
Why have you given up on this one Joseph?